Originally posted by oniraug
can someone tell me why the person next to paul is always taking notes when he talks but paul doesnt take any?

Politicians pay people a lot of money to conduct studies where they sit people, usually middle aged middle class people, in a room and decide this:
Who's smarter. Then they show several different people taking various degrees of note taking while listening and partaking in a debate. The outcome
being every so often (I'm sure there is a specific number) during the speech you must "take a note". Doodle an obscene gesture, write down a joke,
scribble in circles ... doesn't matter. Because you only need to appear to be busy.. people like politicians that seem "informed ... committed ...
studious ... invested.." taking notes exemplifies this. Those trained assclowns don't do ANYTHING without being consulted .. even their doodles.
Ron Paul doesn't take notes because Ron Paul doesn't partake in the retardedness that is American politics.

(Consider this.. what could Santorum possibly have been writing? " I suck ... Ron Paul kicks ass" because other than Paul saying exactly that, I
can't deduce anything else from that exchange.)

edit on 2/23/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)

It's not just about appearing busy or looking studious lol. Ron Paul was taking notes sometimes actually while he was being rebuttaled by Santorum.
Maybe Paul was writing down what Santorum was saying so that when it's time for him to talk, he can look at his notes and, of course, pummel Santorum
into the ground again and again and again... and AGAIN!
Paul/Napolitano 2012.

When you watch anyone of these right wing presidential hopefuls. The only one that looks decent and real is Ron Paul. And I know full well they
aren't going to let him run against Obama. So I looks like 4 more years of Obama. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing considering what the right is
putting up there. The worst presidential hopefuls cast I've ever seen. What a joke!! Go...Ron Pau....ahh forget it

Santorum: 'I had to vote for stuff that I claim to hate, so I could put a bill forward that I like."

Ron Paul (like a boss) 'This is what I'm talking about.'

Kinda like how Ron Paul had to put stuff he claims to hate in his Newletters so he could get more money.

Santorum was being nice to RP, because RP is no threat with his tiny voter base.

If you mean Tiny as in Huge, then yeah I agree with you. If you actually mean tiny, then I will say you better check again

. Are you using the
same "expired ammunition" that CNN and other MSM outlets have used as well?:
"Kinda like how Ron Paul had to put stuff he claims to hate in his Newletters so he could get more money."

What offends me is people pretending to think like God. Complete nutjobs.

And people saying they would ban abortion are pretending to think like God, total nutjobs - oh wait!!!!! That means the sacred RP is choosing to
decide against choice! Actually he isn't is he? Like most of the things I've seen he'll allow states to make the decision, just like drugs and
prostitution. Nice clear answers, that is very helpful. Does he actually have a manifesto that states what he will do, not what he would let states
do?

What offends me is people pretending to think like God. Complete nutjobs.

And people saying they would ban abortion are pretending to think like God, total nutjobs - oh wait!!!!! That means the sacred RP is choosing to
decide against choice! Actually he isn't is he? Like most of the things I've seen he'll allow states to make the decision, just like drugs and
prostitution. Nice clear answers, that is very helpful. Does he actually have a manifesto that states what he will do, not what he would let states
do?

God decides life not the state.

I notice you didn't put up the link to confirm what Paul believes.

He is inconsistent on life. As a doctor, he should know and he denied last evening in the debate saying the "pill" and the "morning after pill"
are the same.

They are not, the "morning after pill" is a powerful dose of the "pill" which is already an abortifacient. So powerful, the MAP has killed women
not
just the baby.

Originally posted by colbe
It's not that difficult, be gentlemen and ladies...please.

What do the "vulgar" Libs here have to say about a fact Gingrich brought
up last evening? BHO voted twice in Illinois to kill a baby who survives an abortion.

Newt used the correct word "infanticide."

Obama voted against the bill because there was already a law on the books in Ill. That said the same thing: if an aborted fetus survives it get to
live. That is already a law in Ill. Durrr

Get you facts straight before following head over heals for Marshmallow buffoon who likes the sound of his own voice and doesn't believe a word
coming out of his own mouth!

edit on 23-2-2012 by MechEng09 because: (no reason given)

BHO voted for infanticide...that's the facts.

Where have you been? BHO is the maximum pro-abort. What did he just mandate, people must pay for even though it goes against their faith beliefs?
Catholic employers still have to pay the Insurance companies! Obama is such a con, thinking people would believe it to be a retreat. No.

One of his first acts as President was to rescind President Bush's executive order to ban funding abortions overseas.

Obama attempted to make it possible that a 13 year old could purchase
the "morning after pill" over the counter...no big deal. Sebelius stopped
him, a moment of "grace" for her.

A rare thing to have in a politician indeed. That's why he's got my vote. To think I would vote for a republican anymore.....well, the way I see it,
I'll vote for anyone who can get the job done. And the fact the Doc has been consistent in his views for 30 years or so (For good or for ill for
some), is the hallmark of his character and reputation. Also the fact that he is unpopular with the mainstream republicans is a very telling thing.
Oh...and he's not in bed with any lobbyists. Now THAT is a welcome relief!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.